23 Jul 11
Originally posted by Thequ1ckJust a little ways in there's this: "Curiously, to know the volume of atoms, we take into account orbitals ...which is a nonsense!"
I'm no physicist but this layman's explanation of an alternative
to the mysterious Higgs particle makes really good sense.
http://www.higgs-boson.org/
Anyone with a more serious understanding of Physics care to
poke holes in it?
But it isn't nonsense. An atom is two things taken together: the nucleus (protons and neutrons) and the electrons. The electrons form something like a negatively charged "cloud" around the nucleus which technically is as big as the universe, just as the gravitational field of Earth doesn't really end anywhere and is as big as the universe. The volume of an atom is calculated out to a certain distance from the nucleus based on a largely arbitrary cutoff, I think.
How about the volume of Jupiter that is mentioned? Jupiter is gaseous, so where do we decide to draw the line and say "Jupiter ends here" and so go about determining its volume? Well, it's done the same way as it's done for an atom: there's going to be an arbitrary cutoff somewhere. Thus, a measure of the volume of Jupiter plus the Sun will be a little bit fuzzy, just as it is for an atom.
But I think I know what the article is driving at. It's as far as I got, so far. 😉
23 Jul 11
Theoretical commentary:
Can we do anything useful with this theory? Build new devices, better GPS, better communication, predict something new, anything? At least theoretically, does it have any useful advantage over existing theories? Is it simpler overall, not just on the chosen aspects? If not it is pretty much just another useless cool model. People are very creative, there are lots of these. Claiming that nature is like this is untestable for this theories because they are not different in experimentation compared to the established theories. Living details vague and able to somehow "match" as needed helps a lot in keeping the theory consistent but reduces a lot its usefulness (more of a fairy-tale rather than concrete physics).
Practical commentary:
No scientist seems to get him seriously. He seems obsessed with popular recognition not scientific one (more popular writer than scientist). It is more an exercise of imagining things differently rather than understanding new things. He spammed (as claimed by himself) 7000 scientists. He has patents on a theory. Real scientists tend to look different, obsessed amateurs/cheaters look alike.
I am not qualified for the math and physics part, maybe some trained physicist can put holes in it. But it seems that it wouldn't matter much if there aren't any.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastInteresting insight. I'm not sure I would agree with an atom theoretically being
Just a little ways in there's this: "Curiously, to know the volume of atoms, we take into account orbitals ...which is a nonsense!"
But it isn't nonsense. An atom is two things taken together: the nucleus (protons and neutrons) and the electrons. The electrons form something like a negatively charged "cloud" around the nucleus which technically is as ...[text shortened]... ut I think I know what the article is driving at. It's as far as I got, so far. 😉
the size of the universe. Can you explain how you interpret this please?
Electrons can pop in and out of existance where-ever they please and so their
probability cloud does extend to any place in the universe but they have a much
much higher probability of being at a well defined distance from the nucleus.
This article seems to avoid this issue by concentrating on 'closed' volumes.
Of course, any measure of the volume of Jupiter or the sun will be fuzzy, they're
both entirely unpredictable due to complexity of chaos within and around them.
Am I missing your point?
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by MihaiWell, by turning an argument on its head, we get at least an opportunity to
Theoretical commentary:
Can we do anything useful with this theory? Build new devices, better GPS, better communication, predict something new, anything? At least theoretically, does it have any useful advantage over existing theories? Is it simpler overall, not just on the chosen aspects? If not it is pretty much just another useless cool model. People are v ...[text shortened]... hysicist can put holes in it. But it seems that it wouldn't matter much if there aren't any.
look at it from another angle.
Consider colour. Is black a colour or an abscence of colour? Are then colours, colours
or an absence of black?
This theory does seem simpler than other theories to me but then that's
because it's the only one I can remotely understand. If it is simpler then
shouldn't we then progress and test it?
There's a fuller article here with some easy to understand Math's
http://www.spacetime-model.com/files/mass_physicists.pdf
The author appears to be a French Engineering student with mild qualifications
but then Einstein wasn't exactly dripping with academia.
23 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckThat's more about definitions than anything else. (and the best definition depends on whether you are discussing the color of light or the color of an object (which is really a measure of what light is absorbed and what light is reflected).
Consider colour. Is black a colour or an abscence of colour? Are then colours, colours
or an absence of black?
There is no such thing as a beam of black light, but an object can be black.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadSure there is. You're just describing colour in the context of time moving
That's more about definitions than anything else. (and the best definition depends on whether you are discussing the color of light or the color of an object (which is really a measure of what light is absorbed and what light is reflected).
There is no such thing as a beam of black light, but an object can be black.
forwards. If it were to run backwards, we'd be calling then beams of black,
or kcalb. Just definition? Maybe.
However, light passing through a material with a negative refractive index
appears to cause light to travel backwards in time (one definition). So that
it appears, back where it started before setting off.
http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/Newphotonics/pdf/physworapr00.PDF
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou answered your own question: electrons pop in and out in a probability cloud, and the probability that an electron will be in a given position will decrease -- but never quite be zero -- the further out from the nucleus we go. Obviously, though, we can expect the electrons to be within an extremely short distance from the nucleus 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time.
Interesting insight. I'm not sure I would agree with an atom theoretically being
the size of the universe. Can you explain how you interpret this please?
Electrons can pop in and out of existance where-ever they please and so their
probability cloud does extend to any place in the universe but they have a much
much higher probability of being at a wel ...[text shortened]... y unpredictable due to complexity of chaos within and around them.
Am I missing your point?
24 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastThe electrons are irrelevant in this theory. In fact the article is based on
You answered your own question: electrons pop in and out in a probability cloud, and the probability that an electron will be in a given position will decrease -- but never quite be zero -- the further out from the nucleus we go. Obviously, though, we can expect the electrons to be within an extremely short distance from the nucleus 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time.
their irrelevance.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12466
24 Jul 11
Originally posted by Thequ1ckNot a professional physicist, but to be honest, from the style of the page I would expect that neither is he. It consists mainly of statements of opinion not based on evidence.
I'm no physicist but this layman's explanation of an alternative
to the mysterious Higgs particle makes really good sense.
http://www.higgs-boson.org/
Anyone with a more serious understanding of Physics care to
poke holes in it?
The whole basis for his argument is that 'In physics, it is not acceptable to have two different definitions of "VOLUME"'. Well, let's start right there: why not? It's acceptable to have two related, but different definitions of "spin", for use in distinct contexts. Even in classical physics, it is perfectly OK to have two related, but different definitions of "wave" (longitudinal and transversal). Why does this bloke think that it is any less acceptable to have two different, but related definitions of "volume" for use in distinct contexts?
Richard
24 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Shallow BlueThe definition of 'volume' as given by Wiki with respect to physical volume
Not a professional physicist, but to be honest, from the style of the page I would expect that neither is he. It consists mainly of statements of opinion not based on evidence.
The whole basis for his argument is that 'In physics, it is not acceptable to have two different definitions of "VOLUME"'. Well, let's start right there: why not? It's a ferent, but related definitions of "volume" for use in distinct contexts?
Richard
is this.
"Volume is the quantity of three-dimensional space enclosed by some closed boundary, for example, the space that a substance (solid, liquid, gas, or plasma) or shape occupies or contains"
The authors point is that an atom is not a 'closed volume'. The only 'closed'
volume within in an atom is the nucleus.
With regards to spin. 'spin' in physics is a shortening of 'spin direction'.
24 Jul 11
Originally posted by Thequ1ckAs I said, I haven't yet read the whole thing. For it to have a chance of being a serious model, however, there would have to be some mathematics to back it up. Maybe there's a link to it somewhere in the site.
The electrons are irrelevant in this theory. In fact the article is based on
their irrelevance.
25 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastAs Above
As I said, I haven't yet read the whole thing. For it to have a chance of being a serious model, however, there would have to be some mathematics to back it up. Maybe there's a link to it somewhere in the site.
http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/Newphotonics/pdf/physworapr00.PDF